Judgment:
ORDER
Satva Brata Sinha, CJ
1. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the matter, we would like to refer to one disturbing factor.
2. The petitioner herein appears to have sent a fax to the Prime Minister of India asking for providing security to him on the ground that this application having been filed against the Chief Minister of the State his security is at stake. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the matter is pending before this Court, a copy of the fax has been sent to one of us (Chief Justice). When confronted with the said fax and when directed to explain as to why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act shall not be initiated against him, the petitioner tendered his unqualified apology and states that the same had been sent bone fide and not with a view to prejudice the mind of this Court. Although no proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are being initiated, the petitioner herein is warned that if in future any such action is brought to the notice of this Court, stringent measures shall be taken against him. Let the fax copy sent be placed on record.
3. Heard the petitioner in person.
4. The petitioner in this application has inter alia prayed for issuance of a direction of this Court directing the first respondent herein to tender his resignation forthwith for gross and flagrant violation of oath of office taken by him and administered by the second respondent and abuse of the powers in installation of statue of late Umesh Chandra showing favouritism,
5. The only allegation made in the application is that the aforementioned late Umesh Chandra, a police officer, whose statue has been unveiled by the first respondent herein at Sanjeevareddy Colony, happened to be a relative of the first respondent.
6. Mr. Kameshwar Rao, the petitioner who appears in person, is stated to be a freedom fighter. According to him, by reason of such unveiling of statue the Chief Minister has shown favouritism to one of his kith and kin. He contends that by reason of the said act, he has violated the oath of office taken by him.
7. Form of oaths as contained in clause (v) of III Schedule appended to the Constitution of India reads:
'Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State:
I, A, B, do swear in the name of God/ Solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold that sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of .....and that Iwill do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.'
8. In terms of Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister is to be appointed by the Governor and other Ministers are to be appointed by him on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Ministers are to hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor.
9. In terms of clause (3) ofArticle 164 of the Constitution of India, a Minister before entering upon office is required to be administered oath of office and secrecy by the Governor in terms of the aforementioned form.
10. Unveiling of a portrait of a police officer by the Chief Minister, be his relative or otherwise, in our considered opinion, does not violate the oath of office and secrecy as provided for in III Schedule appended to the Constitution of India. In any event, having regard to the express provisions contained in Article 164 of the Constitution, this Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Chief Minister of the State to tender his resignation. This application is preposterous in nature and is dismissed accordingly.